CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 216Attachment and Relationship DynamicsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

Difference score correlations in relationship research: a conceptual primer

Open access
GRIFFIN, DALE, MURRAY, SANDRA, GONZALEZ, RICHARD·1999·Personal Relationships
DOI 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00206.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract The practice of computing correlations between “difference” or “discrepancy” scores and an outcome variable is common in many areas of social science. Relationship researchers most commonly use difference scores to index the (dis)similarity of members of two‐person relationships. Using an intuitive, graphical approach—and avoiding formulas and pointing fingers—we illustrate problems with using difference score correlations in relationship research, suggest ways to ensure that difference score correlations are maximally informative, and briefly review alternatives to difference score correlations in studying similarity, accuracy, and related constructs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00206.x

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The use of difference scores in correlational analyses has been criticized as difference scores are subject to a loss of potentially important information and have been argued to be less reliable than their individual parts.

    “the use of difference scores in correlational analyses has been criticized as difference scores are subject to a loss of potentially important information and have been argued to be less reliable than their individual parts (Cohen and Cohen, 1983; Griffin et al., 1999).”

    From Aversive response to uncertainty as a mediator for the effect of a mindfulness intervention on symptoms of anxiety (2022) · cites this paper as Griffin et al., 1999

    The paper says difference-score correlations alone are less informative than their components (passage [1], section labelled Abstract). It also discusses the well-known unreliability criticism (passage [4]) and explains in “Standard multiple regression approaches” that a difference becomes less reliable as its two components become more highly positively correlated. It does not establish that difference scores are generally less reliable than each individual component; the reliability point is conditional. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regres- siodcorrelation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  2. Kenny, D. A. (1988). The analysis of two-person rela- tionships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 57-77). London: Wiley.
  3. Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of nonindependence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Re- lationships, 13, 279-294.
  4. Tisak, 1, & Smith, C. S. (1994). Defending and extend- ing difference scores. Journal of Management, 20, 675-682.
  5. Zuckerman, M., & Knee, C. R. (19%). A comment on Cohin, Block, and Funder (1995). Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 70, 1250-1251.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
GRIFFIN, D., MURRAY, S., & GONZALEZ, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Sussex (GB)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
  • GRIFFIN, DALE
  • GONZALEZ, RICHARD
ORCID
Venue
Personal Relationships
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1999-12
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
505-518
ISSN
  • 1350-4126 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-6811
DOI
10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00206.x
OpenAlex
W2136785930
Cited by
216
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
FWCI
7.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 1997 d)
Locations
  • Personal Relationships (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Leverhulme Trust
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
discrepancy scores, two-person relationships

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review